Dismissed

Gireen Chandra Das and 4 Ors. v. Dr. Ravi Kota, IAS and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Dec 2025Cont.Cas(C)/50/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the requisition and acquisition of land for widening a road to an airport. The Court held that notices were deemed served, the alignment decision rested with experts, and compensation disputes must be raised before the appropriate statutory authority under Section 12 of the 1964 Act. The contempt petition was also closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gireen Chandra Das and 4 Ors. Vs Dr. Ravi Kota, IAS and 8… — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

GAHC010254612024

¶2

2025:GAU-AS:16870

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Writ Petition [C] no. 6374/2024

¶6

Smti. Suniti Das, W/o - Late Hari Bilash Das, D/o- Jew Ram Das, Village - Medhipara, Mirzapur, P.S - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶7

Gireen Chandra Das, S/o - Hari Bilash Das, Village - Medhipara Mirzapur, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781017.

¶8

Dipankar Das, S/o - Hari Bilash Das, Village - Medhipara Mirzapur, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781017.

¶9

Smti. Nilima Das, W/o - Dharani Dhar Das, Village – Medhipara Mirzapur, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781017.

¶10

Gunajit Das, S/o - Late Dharani Dhar Das, Village - Mirzapur, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶11

Md. Khalequr Zaman, S/o - Late Rahman Ali, R/o - South Sarania, P.O. Ulubari, P.S. -

¶12

Page 1 of 30

¶13

Paltan Bazar, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781007.

¶14

Ms. Anowara Begum, W/o - Late Md. Chunu Ali, D/o - Late Mafiz Uddin Ahmed.

¶15

Md. Aminul Islam, S/o - Late Md. Chunu Ali.

¶16

Md. Azhar Ali, S/o - Late Md. Chunu Ali, All Are R/o - Lower Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶17

Ms. Parveen Sultana, D/o - Late Md. Chunu Ali, W/o - Zeeshan Iftikar, R/o - House No. 43, Hemgiri Path, P.O - Ulubari, P.S. - Paltan Bazar, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin781007.

¶18

Aijan Bibi, W/o - Late Chand Muhammad Ali.

¶19

Mohammed Sariful Ali, S/o - Late Chand Muhammad Ali.

¶20

Md. Sadek Ali, S/o - Late Chand Muhammad Ali.

¶21

Md. Sabed Ali, S/o - Late Chand Muhammad Ali.

¶22

All Are R/o - Lower Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017

¶23

Md.Firoj Ali, S/o - Late Miyajan Ali, R/oLower Mirzapur, P.O.- Azara, P.S. - Azara District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶24

Page 2 of 30

¶25

Samsun Nessa, W/o Late Rajat Ali.

¶26

Rajiul Islam, S/o - Late Rajat Ali.

¶27

Abdul Rahman, S/o - Late Rajat Ali.

¶28

All are R/o - Lower Mirzapur, P.O.- Azara P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶29

Mrs. Rashida Begum, D/o - Late Rajat Ali, Village - Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781017. Present Address - W/o - Osman Ali, Village - No. 1 Uttar Sakhadari, P.O - Damalchosh, District - Kamrup (Rural), Assam, Pin - 781135.

¶30

Makibur Rahman, S/o - Late Masheb Ali, H/No- 1242, Village - Garigaon Near Owrtol Mosjid, P.O. - Jalukbari, Satmile Road, P.S.Jalukbari, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶31

………………Petitioners

¶32

- VERSUS -

¶33

The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati781006.

¶34

Page 3 of 30

¶35

The Commissioner and Secretary, PWD (Roads), Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006.

¶36

The Chief Engineer, Department of PWD (Roads), Government of Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati- 781003.

¶37

The Executive Engineer of PWD (Roads), Central Guwahati Territorial Roads Division, Fancy Bazar.

¶38

………………. Respondents

¶39

With

¶40

Cont.CASe [C] no.50/2025

¶41

Gireen Chandra Das, S/o Hari Bilash Das, Village - Medhipara Mirzapur, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶42

Md. Khalequr Zaman, S/o Late Rahman Ali, R/o South Sarania, P.O. - Ulubari, P.S. - Paltan Bazar, District- Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781007.

¶43

Md. Aminul Islam, S/o Late Md. Chunu Ali, R/o Lower Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara P.S. - Azara, Dist. - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶44

Rajiul Islam, S/o Late Rajat Ali, R/o Lower Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶45

Page 4 of 30

¶46

Gunajit Das, S/o Late Dharani Dhar Das, R/o Mirzapur, P.O. - Azara, P.S. - Azara, District - Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin - 781017.

¶47

………………Petitioners

¶48

¶49

Dr. Ravi Kota IAS, Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati-781006.

¶50

Chandan Sharma IAS, the Commissioner and Secretary PWD (Roads), Government of Assam, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati781006.

¶51

Sanjeev Shyam, the Chief Engineer Department of PWD (Roads), Government of Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati-781003.

¶52

Pranjal Bhattacharya, the Executive Engineer of PWD (Roads), Central Guwahati Territorial Roads Division, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati-781001.

¶53

Chandan Sharma IAS, the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Janata Bhawan, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006.

¶54

Page 5 of 30

¶55

Dr. Om Prakash IAS, the Director of Land Records and Surveys, etc., Assam, Rupnagar, Guwahati - 781032.

¶56

Sumit Sattawan IAS, the District Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Kamrup (M), District - Lichubagan, Hengrabari, Guwahati, Assam - 781036.

¶57

Apratim Goswami ACS, the Circle Officer, Azara Revenue Circle, Azara, Kamrup (M), Guwahati - 781017.

¶58

A M Raja Kishore, the Director, the Airports Authority of India, Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Borjhar, Guwahati - 781015.

¶59

………………. Respondents

¶60

BeFore

¶61

hon’BLe Mr. JUStiCe MAniSh ChoUDhUrY

¶62

Advocates :

¶63

Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Talukdar, Advocate Respondents : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Government Advocate, Mr. R. Borpujari, Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department; and Ms. M. Das, Advocate.

¶64

Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable

¶65

Page 6 of 30

¶66

Date of pronouncement of judgment	: 04.12.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment?	: No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced ?	: Yes

¶67

JUDGMent & orDer [orAL]

¶68

Heard Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam & Standing Counsel, Public Works Department [PWD], Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8; Mr. R. Barpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 6; and Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 in Contempt Case [C] no. 50/2025.

¶69

In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, twenty nos. of petitioners have joined together stating that they have a common cause of action to espouse. The primary contention of the petitioners is that in the process of requisition, closely followed by acquisition, the respondent authorities have violated the provisions of the Assam Land [Requisition and Acquisition] Act, 1964, as amended, [‘the Act, 1964’ and/or ‘the 1964 Act’, for short] as well as the Assam Land [Requisition and Acquisition] Rules, 1964 [‘the 1964 Rules’ and/or ‘the Rules, 1964’, for short] apart from the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [‘the RFCTLARR Act’, for short]. The petitioners have specifically claimed that in the course of the requisition and acquisition process drawn up vide L.A. Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024, the respondent authorities had violated the

¶70

Page 7 of 30

¶71

principles of natural justice in that the Notices issued under Section 3 and the Order passed under Section 4 of the Act, 1964 was not served on any of the petitioners.

¶72

From the pleadings in the writ petition, it can be noticed that the petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no. 5 are successors –in- interest of one Late Hari Bilash Das and one Late Dharani Dhar Das and they claimed that they are the owners of a parcel of land measuring 1 Bigha & 1 Katha, covered by Dag no. 1299 & Patta no. 488. The petitioner no. 6 has claimed to be an owner of a parcel of land measuring 3 Kathas & 7.5 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 175 & Patta no. 59. The petitioner nos. 7 - 10 are successors –in- interest of one Late Chunu Ali and the petitioner nos. 11 - 14 are the successors –in- interest of one Late Chand Muhammad. The petitioner no. 15 is the son of one Late Miyajan Ali. The petitioner nos. 7 - 15 have asserted that they are the joint owners of periodic patta lands covered by Dag no. 1288 & Patta no. 140 and their owned area of land is 1 Bigha & 1 Katha. The petitioner nos. 16 - 19 are the successors –in- interest of one Late Rajat Ali whereas the petitioner no. 20 became the owner of a plot of land by purchase. The petitioner nos. 16 - 20 are joint owners of a parcel of land measuring 2 Kathas 8 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 1298 & Patta no. 379.

¶73

It is stated that other than the petitioner no. 6, the other petitioners’ parcels of land are located in Village - Garal and their parcels of land have been brought under the purview of requisition and acquisition vide L.A. Case no. 13/2024. The parcel of land owned by the petitioner no. 6 is located in Village - Mirzapur and the parcels of land located in Village - Mirzapur have been brought under the purview of requisition and acquisition vide L.A. Case no. 12/2024.

¶74

Page 8 of 30

¶75

The main point agitated by Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the land documents annexed to the writ petition would clearly demonstrate that the petitioners are owners of various parcels of land, as indicated above. Few months prior to filing of the writ petition in November, 2024, the officials from the office of the respondent nos. 7 & 8 paid a nos. of visits to the localities of the petitioners and inspected the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners. They also took measurements of lands without disclosing the reason for their such actions. The petitioners came to learn that the respondent authorities were in contemplation to upgrade and widen the existing two-lane PWD road leading to the Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport [‘the LGBI Airport’, for short] in the vicinity of which the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners situate. The petitioners subsequently came to learn that the road would be upgraded and widened from two-lane to six-lane. As in a process of requisition or acquisition, as the case may be, it is mandatory on the part of the acquiring authority to serve prior notices, the petitioners apprehended that the respondent authorities were taking steps for requisition or acquisition, as the case may be, without serving any prior notice as mandated by the statutes, that is, the 1964 Act and the RFCTLARR Act.

¶76

5.1. Mr. Talukdar has specifically contended that for the purpose of requisition, the requisitioning authority, that is, the respondent no. 7, the District Commissioner, as the empowered authority, was obligated to serve the Notice in Form-A of the 1964 Rules. But, the requisitioning authority did not serve the Notice in prescribed Form-A upon the petitioners. He has submitted that in the counter affidavit, the requisitioning authority has taken a stand that the petitioners when sought to be served with the Notice, refused to accept them. He has questioned the veracity of such statements.

¶77

Page 9 of 30

¶78

5.2. Mr. Talukdar has further highlighted that the areas in Village - Garal and Village - Mirzapur where the parcels of land of the petitioners are located, are already developed and the parcels of land of the petitioners though classified as agricultural land in the revenue records, the parcels of land by virtue of non-use for a number of decades have already become non-agricultural land. He has referred to Rule 23, Rule 59, Rule 73 & Rule 107 of the Assam Land Records Manual to contend that obligation was cast on the revenue authorities to reclassify the petitioners' parcels of land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land, prior to requisition or acquisition, whatever the case may be.

¶79

5.3. It has been further submitted that some of the petitioners, prior to initiation of the requisition and/or acquisition process, had submitted applications for re-classification of their parcels of land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land, but those applications were deliberately not given consideration.

¶80

5.4. It is also contended that the requisitioning authority had acquired the parcels of land only from one side of the existing two-lane road for widening it to a six-lane road without touching the other side of the existing two-lane road. It is the side where the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners situate, which have been brought within the purview of requisition and acquisition. Such an approach is clearly arbitrary and smacks of malafide and it demonstrated that the requisitioning and/or acquiring authority had adopted pick and chose approach which is clearly bad and without justification.

¶81

5.5. Mr. Talukdar has further submitted that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were served with Notice dated 27.02.2025 under Section 7[1] of the 1964 Act indicating the amounts of compensation assessed against the concerned parcel of land. On the amounts of compensation so assessed, the petitioners have contended

¶82

Page 10 of 30

¶83

that the assessments were made without following the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. He has submitted that in the vicinity of the petitioners’ parcels of land there are large scale development and a number of big commercial establishments have already been set up, as evident from the Annexure - C series photographs enclosed with the writ petition. By making reference to the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the provisions of giving a hearing to the persons interested, publication in newspapers/Gazettes, etc. were not followed. He has contended that it is settled that the right to be heard against any proposed acquisition has to be meaningful and the landowners have a right to communicate their objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the property. But, the steps followed by the responding authorities go to demonstrate that no hearing was afforded to the petitioners and in absence of a Notice under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act, the petitioners could not even communicate their objections and concerns to the requisitioning authority.

¶84

5.6. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the amounts offered in the Notice under Section 7[1] of the 1964 Act are grossly inadequate in that the amounts assessed, according to the petitioners, for their parcels of land are much lesser, say @ Rs. 40,00,000/- per Bigha, whereas, for commercial class of land located in the vicinity, the value has been taken @ Rs. 96,00,000/- per Bigha. As the petitioners’ parcels of land due to long disuse can be classified as commercial class. Therefore, the valuation of their parcels of land @ Rs. 40,00,000/- per Bigha is grossly inadequate.

¶85

5.7. Mr. Talukdar by referring to the documents annexed to the affidavit-inreply, which are copies of revenue records, has submitted that a large area in the vicinity of the petitioners’ parcels of land have been declared and re-classified as commercial land. It is his contention that

¶86

Page 11 of 30

¶87

by the same parameters, the compensation amounts for the petitioners’ parcels of land ought to have been assessed.

¶88

Responding to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that in L.A. Case no. 12/2024, an area of land measuring 6 Bighas, 2 Kathas & 14 Lessas have been brought under the purview of requisition and acquisition. In L.A. Case no. 13/2024, the area of land is 21 Bighas & 7.5 Lessas. He has stated that in L.A. Case no. 12/2024, a total of 183 landowners have been enlisted as beneficiaries. Similarly, in case of L.A. Case no. 13/2024, a total of 729 nos. of landowners are made beneficiaries.

¶89

6.1. It is only the petitioner no. 6 in L.A. Case no. 12/2024 and the petitioner nos. 1-5 & the petitioner nos. 7-20 who have claimed that they were not served with the Notices under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act. He has submitted that after issuance of Notice under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act by the respondent no. 7, the Notices were taken to the localities through the process server for service upon the noticees in presence of the Gaon Pradhans of the concerned villages. Most of the beneficiaries were served with the Notices and some of the beneficiaries could not be served with the Notices due to their absence in the locality.

¶90

6.2. He has submitted that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, apart from few others, they refused to accept the Notices. The petitioners’ names were in the Notice. He has, thus, contended that such refusal is to be accepted as deemed acceptance of the Notice and therefore, there was no irregularity on the part of the requisitioning authority as well as the acquiring authority to take further steps for service of the same Notice again in the requisition and acquisition process. After a decision taken to acquire the parcels of land initially requisitioned,

¶91

Page 12 of 30

¶92

Gazette Notifications, as required under Section 6[1] of the 1964 Act, were duly published and thereafter, the Notices under Section 7[1] of the 1964 Act were issued to all the beneficiaries including the petitioners herein.

¶93

6.3. He has further contended that the compensation amounts assessed, as indicated in the Notices under Section 7[1], are assessed as per the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding gross inadequacy cannot be countenanced and is without basis. He has submitted that by the Notice, the noticees were asked to submit their claims. Therefore, such contention is not to be agitated before this Court.

¶94

6.4. In so far as the contention raised regarding selective acquisition of land only from one side of the earlier existing two-lane road is concerned, Mr. Nath has submitted that it is after preparation of a feasibility and project report, the process of acquisition was initiated. Since the purpose of the project is to widen the existing two-lane road leading to the LGBI Airport into a six-lane road, it is the alignment prepared by the experts, a matter exclusively within the domain of the experts, which is to be given precedence. If as per the feasibility and for the purpose of alignment only the parcels of land situated in one side of the existing two-lane road are to be acquired, it is not open for the petitioners to raise such ground in this writ petition.

¶95

6.5. Mr. Nath has further submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation amounts, as mentioned in the Notices under Section 7[1] of the 1964 Act, it is always open for the petitioners to seek enhancement by seeking a reference before the authority. In support of such submissions, he has referred to Section 12 of the 1964 Act. He has submitted that similar provisions for reference are also in the RFCTLARR Act as well as in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since

¶96

Page 13 of 30

¶97

repealed]. With such submissions, he has submitted that the matter of adequacy or inadequacy of compensation is not to be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶98

6.6. As regards the contention regarding the re-classification of the parcels of land of the petitioners, it is submitted by him that such point on the basis of the provisions of the Assam Land Records Manual is not open to be agitated as the provisions in the Assam Land Records Manual are merely guidelines. If petitioners' parcels of land have acquired the status of non-agricultural class / commercial class because of long disuse, the petitioners ought to have taken recourse to the provisions of the Assam Agricultural Land [Regulation of Re-classification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purpose] Act, 2015 [‘the Re-classification Act, 2015’, for short]. Non-disposal of the applications for reclassification in respect of few of the petitioners and absence of applications for re-classification for the remaining petitioners cannot be a ground to assess the compensation amounts with respect to the petitioners' parcels of land as non-agricultural land.

¶99

6.7. He has further submitted that the compensation amounts for all the parcels of land brought under the purview of L.A. Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024 were arrived at after consideration of the existing zonal rates for different classes of lands, namely, commercial, agricultural, etc., and the compensation amounts in respect of all the beneficiaries including the petitioners have been assessed as per the class of land, as recorded in the revenue records.

¶100

Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel Revenue Department appearing for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 has submitted in similar lines as Mr. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate & Standing Counsel, PWD.

¶101

Page 14 of 30

¶102

I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings brought on record by the parties.

¶103

When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6374/2024 was filed and came up for consideration on 19.12.2024, the Court while issuing notice of motion, had observed that there shall be no eviction of the petitioners without following the prescribed procedure under the relevant statute. Alleging violation of the said interim direction, the contempt petition, Contempt Case [C] no. 50/2025 was filed. Subsequently on 18.11.2025, the interim direction passed on 19.12.2024 was discontinued. It is in such context, the contempt petition is to be examined.

¶104

The Assam Land [Requisition and Acquisition] Act, 1964 was enacted to consolidate the law for requisition and speedy acquisition of premises and land for certain public purposes. The power to requisition land has been provided under Section 3 of the Act, 1964 to the State Government or any person authorised in that behalf by the State Government. Section 3 of the Act, 1964 has inter-alia provided that if in the opinion of the State Government or the person authorised in that behalf by the State Government it is necessary so to do, for any of the purposes mentioned therein, the State Government or the person so authorised [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authorised Officer’, for short], as the case may be, may by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning. An order passed under Section 3 is to be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land.

¶105

Page 15 of 30

¶106

Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules has laid down that an order of requisition under Section 3 shall be in Form ‘B’ as far as may be, with such modification, if any, as may be necessary.

¶107

Copies of a set of Notices in Form ‘B’ stated to have been issued under Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules and the Order passed under the Act, 1964 in L.A. case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024 have been placed by Mr. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate & Standing Counsel, PWD before this Court. It is relevant to note that this Court on 18.11.2025, recorded a prima facie opinion that the Notices under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1964 and Order passed under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act were issued to the beneficiaries and notices were brought to the knowledge of most of the beneficiaries. It is averred that the Order under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act and the Notices issued under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1964 were issued on 09.07.2024.

¶108

On perusal of the Notices, placed before this Court by the learned Senior Government Advocate, it is found that a large number of noticees who are listed as landowners, had received the Notices under their signatures. There were no signatures in case of a number of noticees in those notices and those included the petitioners herein also. It is pressed before the Court that other than twenty petitioners herein whose parcels of land were requisitioned, and thereafter, acquired in connection with L.A. Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024, no other landowners-beneficiaries had questioned on the aspect of nonservice of the Order passed under Section 3[1] of the 1964 Act read with Notices issued under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1964. From the signatures subscribed in the Notices, wherein all the names of the landowners-noticees have been mentioned, it is evident that a large number of landowners-beneficiaries were served with the Notices and they subscribed their signatures therein. It has been submitted on

¶109

Page 16 of 30

¶110

behalf of the State respondents that a nos. of landowners-beneficiaries also refused to accept the Notices.

¶111

Section 4 of the Act, 1964 has provided for the power to take possession of requisitioned land. As per Section 4, where any land has been requisitioned under Section 3, the State Government or the Authorised person in that behalf, by Order in writing, can direct the owner, the tenant, or any other person who may be in possession of land whether at the time of requisition or at any time thereafter before the land, whether at the time of requisition or at any time thereafter before the land is released from requisition, or under such Section 8 to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the Collector or other person duly authorised by him in that behalf within such days of service of the order as may be specified therein. When this power is considered vis-àvis the power to take possession provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed] [‘the 1894 Act’] and in the RFCTLARR Act, it is found that as per Section 16 of the Act, 1894, it is only after the Collector passes an award under Section 11, he can take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. As per Section 38 of the RFCTLARR Act, the Collector can take possession of the land after ensuring that full payment of compensation is paid to the entitled persons within the time period mentioned therein. Thus, there is a distinction in the Act, 1964 in respect of the power to take possession of the requisitioned land. The power to take possession of the requisitioned land as per the Act, 1964 gets operational as soon as an Order under Section 3 is passed. If any person refuses or fails to comply with such an order, the State Government or the Authorised Officer may take possession of the land, if required, even by use of force. The validity and legality of such power is not questioned here.

¶112

Page 17 of 30

¶113

As per sub-section [1] of Section 6 of the 1964 Act, where any land has been requisitioned under Section 3, the State Government may use or deal with it in such manner as may appear to it be expedient. It may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire such land in pursuance of the power under Section 6[1]. Sub-section [2] of Section 6 has provided that where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned land and premises shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such land shall end. Sub-section [3] has laid down that subject to provisions of the Act, 1964, on such vesting, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the rules framed thereunder shall, so far as may be apply to such land.

¶114

The State Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department by an Order dated 08.05.2015 had declared that for land acquisition in the State of Assam, the State Government can go by the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act and in cases where land was acquired under the Act, 1964, all benefits like additional compensation, rehabilitation to displaced persons and protection to landowners as provided in the RFCTLARR Act would be provided.

¶115

It is noticed that after the Order under Section 3[1] dated 09.07.2024, a decision to acquire the land under Section 6[1] of the 1964 Act for the parcels of land brought under the purview of L.A. Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024 was taken on 18.07.2024 vide Notification nos. - L.A. case No. 12/2024/656 & L.A. case No. 13/2024/566. By the Notifications, it was notified that in pursuance of Section 6[1] of the Act, 1964, the State Government had decided to acquire the parcels of land described therein from the date of publication of the Notice of requisition under Section 3[1] for converting the existing two-lane road

¶116

Page 18 of 30

¶117

connecting LGBI International Airport, Guwahati from VIP Junction to six-lane road under P.M. Devine Programme and SOPD[G]. By the Notification pertaining to L.A. Case no. 12/2024, an area of land measuring 6 Bighas 2 Kathas 14 Lessas [06B-02K-14L] has been shown to be acquired. By the Notification pertaining to L.A. Case no. 13/2024, an area of land measuring 21 Bighas 7.5 Lessas [21B-00K-7.5L] has been shown to be acquired. As mentioned above, the petitioner no. 6’s parcel of land has been acquired vide L.A. Case no. 12/2024 and the other petitioners’ parcels of land have been acquired vide L.A. Case no. 13/2024. The Notifications were published in the Assam Gazette in Issue nos. 301 and 302 on 25.07.2024. From the above, it is evident that the requisition process initiated on 09.07.2024 ceased on 25.07.2024 and on and from 25.07.2024, parcels of land which were earlier requisitioned by virtue of Section 6[2] of the Act, 1964 got vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

¶118

The definition of the expression ‘requisition’ and ‘acquisition’ are not provided in the Act, 1964 and the Rules, 1964. In Kewal Chand Mimani vs. S.K. Sen and others, [2001] 6 SCC 512 , it has been observed that the two concepts of acquisition and requisition cannot but be ascribed to be total distinct and independent. Whereas the acquisition involves an element of permanency and finality involving a transfer of title, the concept of requisition is merely to take over the domain or control over the property without acquiring the rights of ownership and must be, by its very nature, be of temporary duration. The expression ‘requisition’ is taking of possession of the property for a limited period. In ‘requisition’, the property dealt with is not acquired by the State but is taken out of the control of the owner for the time being for certain specified purposes. The two concepts, are different in that in ‘acquisition’ title passes to the acquiring authority; in ‘requisition’, title remains with the owner, the possession goes to the

¶119

Page 19 of 30

¶120

requisitioning authority. One in the taking over of the title and possession and the other is the taking over of the possession.

¶121

In Charanjit Lal Chowdhury vs. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 , the difference between the temporary and transitory nature of requisition and permanent nature of acquisition was highlighted by this Court. It was inter-alia held that upon acquisition the entire bundle of rights which were vested in the former original holder would pass on to the acquirer leaving nothing in the former, while requisition would keep merely possession in the person requisitioning while leaving the title of the owner intact. In other words, if the possession of property by exercise of dominion thereupon is continued indefinitely, it would amount to colourable exercise of or fraud on the power and nothing but a back-door expropriation of property.

¶122

In the case in hand, after requisitioning of the parcels of land on 03.07.2024, the Notification to acquire the land was issued on 18.07.2024 and thereafter, the Notifications was published in the Official Gazette on 25.07.2024.

¶123

It has been brought to the notice of the Court that out of the acquired land measuring 06B-2K-14L in L.A. Case no. 12/2024 and the areas of land 21B-00K-7.5L in L.A. Case no. 13/2024, share of the petitioners’ parcels of land is only 1 Bigha 19 Lessas [01B-00K-19L].

¶124

Section 7[1] of the Act, 1964 has laid down that after the publication of a Notice under sub-section [1] of Section 6, the Collector has to cause a public notice to be given in convenience place or near the land to be taken stating that the State Government has acquired the land and that the claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. As per sub-section [2] of Section 7, such notice shall state particulars of the land so acquired, and shall require all persons

¶125

Page 20 of 30

¶126

interested in the land to appear personally or by duly authorised agent before the Collector at a time and place mentioned therein and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claim to compensation for such interests.

¶127

In the Notices issued under Section 7[1] of the Act, 1964 on 27.02.2025 which were served upon the petitioners as well as the other landowners-beneficiaries, the areas of land acquired and compensation amounts assessed against such acquired land were mentioned asking the noticees to appear personally or duly authorised persons before the Collector to claim for compensation, if any, within fifteen days from the date of issue of the Notice.

¶128

The State respondents have averred that the decision to requisition and acquisition of the parcels of land at Villages – Garal, Mirzapur, Dharapur, Kahikuchi and Jogipara - was taken after conducting a jointsurvey resulting in submission of a Report on 28.05.2024. The decisions to requisition and to acquire the parcels of land were for the purpose of converting the existing two-lane road connecting LGBI International Airport, Guwahati from VIP Junction to six-lane road under P.M. Devine Programme and SOPD[G]. Accordingly, the Notices issued under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1964 and the Order passed under Section 3[1] of the Act, 1964 were issued on 09.07.2024 which were served upon the pattadars through the Gaon Pradhan of the villages. Such assertion made on behalf of the State respondents have been refuted by the petitioners stating that the State respondents who were required to serve the notice of requisition mandatorily on the landowners had not been done.

¶129

Such issue regarding service or non-service of the Notices issued under Rule 4 of the Rules, 1964 and the Order passed under Section 3[1] of

¶130

Page 21 of 30

¶131

the Act, 1964 is to be examined in the context of the materials on record.

¶132

As mentioned above, there were 183 nos. of beneficiaries in L.A. Case no. 12/2024 and 729 nos. of beneficiaries in L.A Case no. 13/2024. Other than these twenty petitioners, who are from about six-seven families, none of the other landowners-beneficiaries whose names appeared in the consolidated Notices – some of whom subscribed their signatures and some of whom had not subscribed their signatures therein – had raise any protest in the subsequent period that they were not served with the Notice under Rule 4 and the Order Section 3[1]. From such perspective, this Court is not agreeable to accept that no endeavour was made by the State respondents to serve the Notice under Rule 4 and the Order under Section 3[1] upon the petitioners.

¶133

The next issue for consideration is with regard to the location of requisition and acquisition of the parcels of land acquired on only one side of the then existing two-lane road from VIP Junction to LGBI International Airport, Guwahati. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that there were similarly suited land on the other side of the then existing two-lane road also. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a contention that there is nos. of vacant land on the other side. But, those lands were deliberately left out from the purview of requisition and acquisition.

¶134

The State respondents stated to have made a joint-survey with the requiring department, Public Works [Roads] Department prior to initiation of the requisition and acquisition process which resulted in a Report dated 28.05.2024. From the Office Letter dated 11.09.2024 of the respondent no. 7 addressed to the requiring department, Public Works [Roads] Department, it can be noticed that the parcels of land were acquired not only from the two Villages – Garal and Mirzapur –

¶135

Page 22 of 30

¶136

where the parcels of land of the petitioners were located, but from four other villages. The details of the acquired lands village-wise can be seen from the Table as follows :-

¶137

		Table
SI.	Village/Mouza	Type of land	Total Patta land
1	Kahikuchi	K.P. Patta land	3B-4K-2L
2	Jogipara	K.P. Patta land	1B-1K-14.5L
3	Mirzapur	K.P. Patta land	6B-2K-4L
4	Garal	K.P. Patta land	21B-0K-7.5L
5	Dharapur	K.P. Patta land	18B-3K-8.75L
6	Azara	K.P. Patta land	0B-1K-0L
	Total acquired land excl	uding Govt. land	51B-3K-6.75L

¶138

From the above fact of acquisition of 51 Bighas 3 Kathas and 6.75 Lessas [51B-03K-6.75L] in total for conversion of the then existing twolane road connecting LGBI International Airport, Guwahati from VIP Junction to six-lane road under the P.M. Devine Programme and SOPD[G], it is not discernible that it was only the petitioners’ parcels of land which were chosen for requisition and acquisition. It is easily discernible that it is the feasibility and alignment of the road from twolane to six-lane through six villages which are to be taken into consideration in the process of requisition and acquisition.

¶139

In Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others, [2011] 12 SCC 6 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶140

28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of national highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for the

¶141

Page 23 of 30

¶142

development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of national highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in the rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither has any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act been established nor has the charge of malice in fact been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.

¶143

The matters of feasibility and alignment lie within the domain of experts and the Court sitting in supervisory writ jurisdiction does not have the expertise and domain knowledge to comment on the feasibility and alignment of the road for conversion and widening of two-lane road into six-lane road leading to an international airport that it would have been better or convenient if the lands from both the sides would have been acquired. It is not the case of the petitioners that the process of requisition/acquisition is without any opinion or report of an expert body. The Public Works [Roads] Department is the requiring authority and as its technical experts have decided about the feasibility and alignment of the proposed six-lane road, the Court does not substitute its view to that of the experts unless it is without any

¶144

Page 24 of 30

¶145

basis. If in the process of such acquisition of land keeping in mind the aspects of feasibility and alignment of the road, the parcels of land belonging to the petitioners, incidentally one side of the then existing two-lane road had been brought under the purview of L.A. Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024 came under purview, such issue without any further supporting and convincing materials from the petitioners establishing that the alignment made was any basis is not an issue to be adjudicated in writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶146

Rule 23, Rule 59 & Rule 74 of the Assam Land Records Manual have been referred to on behalf of the petitioners to claim that the same cast an obligation on the part of the State to convert land, which are recorded as agricultural land, to non-agricultural class due to its nonuse for long periods. Rule 23 of the Assam Land Records Manual has provided that the recorder during his winter tour is required to make a list of all fields which have been converted from agricultural to nonagricultural use. The provision in Rule 23 itself indicates that the recorder has to make a list of all fields which have already been converted to non-agricultural use from agricultural use. A recorder does not have any power and authority to convert any land from agriculture use to non-agriculture use. It is only after conversion of a plot of land into non-agricultural use, the recorder has to do additional assessment as per the rules framed thereunder. Rule 59 has provided for making a record of land-use as per current utilization and in the record, the land is to be recorded depending on the use, that is, forest, barren and unculturable land, land put to non-agricultural uses, current fallow, etc. Rule 74 has provided that the annual jamabandi is required to be filled up from the relevant column of the chitha in accordance with the nature of land-use.

¶147

Page 25 of 30

¶148

The provisions of Rule 23, Rule 59 & Rule 74 when read together, do not go to indicate, in the considered view of this Court, that under those provisions, an obligation is cast on revenue authorities to automatically convert the class of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural land only noticing its non-use for a long period. The provisions of the Assam Land Records Manual are not statutory prescriptions. The provisions do not have any statutory prescriptions and are merely in the form of guidelines and instructions.

¶149

The Assam Agricultural Land [Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non-Agricultural Purpose] Act, 2015 [‘the Re-classification Act, 2015’] has been enacted by the State Legislature to regulate the reclassification and the transfer of agricultural lands for intended nonagricultural purpose in the State of Assam and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶150

As per Section 2[y] of the Reclassification Act, 2015, ‘reclassification’ means change of land use from agricultural purpose to intended nonagricultural purpose and ‘reclassified land’ means for which permission under the Reclassification Act is granted for use for non-agricultural purpose. It is the owner, as defined in Section 2[r], who has to express the intention for change of use of his land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purpose and to seek for such reclassification following the procedure for reclassification laid down in Section 5 of the Act. Sub-section [1] of Section 5 of the Reclassification Act has prescribed that any owner of agricultural land who intends to reclassify agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, shall have to make an application to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner giving full particulars of his land and justification of the proposed reclassification in such form and manner as prescribed. Section 3 of the Reclassification Act, 2015 has placed a bar in the form that no person shall use agricultural land for intended non-agricultural purposes

¶151

Page 26 of 30

¶152

without reclassification and permission in the manner laid down in the Reclassification Act.

¶153

Thus, the concept of reclassification of agricultural lands for use nonagricultural purposes would get operational only when the owner of the land himself expresses an intention and shows justification for such reclassification, meaning thereby, the process of reclassification is to be initiated from the end of the owner. It is only after permission is granted, the land can be put to use for non-agricultural purposes, that is, after the land classified earlier for used or agricultural purposes get reclassified for use of non-agricultural purpose. The provisions of the Assam Land Records Manual would, at best, facilitate the competent authority to take a decision on reclassification.

¶154

Section 9 of the Re-classification Act, 2015 which is with a non obstante clause, has provided the Deputy Commissioner with a power to reclassify any agricultural land where a non-agricultural activity has already been established before the commencement of the Reclassification Act, 2015 under the existing laws, for the purpose of revenue assessment, upto a maximum period of sixty days from the date of commencement of the Re-classification Act, 2015. From the very provision itself, it can be noticed that the power available to the District Commissioner under Section 9 is a discretionary. It is for him to reach a view that in the concerned land classified as agricultural, nonagricultural activities has already been established before the Reclassification Act. Having regard to the ambit and scope of the power of judicial review, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner did not exercise the discretionary power in respect of the petitioners’ parcels of land cannot be considered because it is the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner who has to reach a finding that non-agricultural activity has already been established which, in turn, again require determination of facts.

¶155

Page 27 of 30

¶156

It is stated by the petitioners that some of the petitioners prior to initiation of the process of requisition and acquisition had submitted applications for reclassification. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that due to initiation of the process of requisition and acquisition, those applications were not processed. If those petitioners who have already applied for reclassification of their respective parcels of land can establish that the reclassification did not happen due to inaction, apathies, etc. on the part of the authorities under the Reclassification Act, 2015, then those petitioners might have a case for consideration of their respective parcels of land for assessment in that manner. But such a fact has to be established by leading evidence to that effect. If such a contention is raised, it would also be open for the respondent authorities to rebut the claim. Such determination of facts could not and might not be adjudicated by this Court in writ jurisdiction which is only a supervisory jurisdiction. Non-adjudication of such claim of the petitioners would not, however, preclude those landowners/ petitioners to raise such a claim before the appropriate forum in an appropriate proceedings. In such view of the matter, any observation made in this order shall not be construed as observation on the merits of the claim of the petitioners regarding reclassification of their land.

¶157

The acquiring authority after exercising the power of acquisition under Section 6 of the Act, 1964 has already proceeded to issue the Notice under Section 7[1] of the Act, 1964 to all the landowners-beneficiaries whose parcels of land have been acquired vide L.A Case no. 12/2024 & L.A. Case no. 13/2024. The petitioners were served with such notices. The petitioners have stated that the compensation amounts indicated in the Notices dated 27.02.2025 issued under Section 7[1] of the Act, 1964 are grossly inadequate and the same have not been assessed following the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. It is iterated that the petitioners have contended that the market value of the petitioners’

¶158

Page 28 of 30

¶159

parcels of land are much higher than Rs. 40,00,000/- per Bigha as the petitioners can establish from the land transactions occurred in the vicinity of the petitioners’ parcels of land in the preceding years that the market value ought to have been taken at a much higher value than the zonal valuation as contended on behalf of the respondent authorities. Having considered the submissions regarding gross inadequacy of the compensation amounts, this Court is of the unhesitant view that such issues and claims are not to be agitated by the petitioners in a writ proceeding and the same are to be agitated in an appropriate forum.

¶160

In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that Section 12 of the Act, 1964 has provided for reference to Court in the event a landownerbeneficiary is not satisfied with the amount of compensation assessed. The provisions under Section 12 of the 1964 Act is similar to Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act. As such issues and claims are to be agitated before an appropriate forum, this Court is not making any observations on the aspect of adequacy or inadequacy of the compensation amounts assessed against acquisition of the petitioners’ parcels of land. The petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to raise such issues and claims before the appropriate forum.

¶161

It is pertinent to mention that even if the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation amounts assessed by the acquiring authority as indicated in the Notice under Section 7[1] of the Act, 1964, it is still open for the petitioners to receive the said amounts recording their protest, thereby, reserving the liberty to ask or go for reference raising issues and claims regarding inadequacy of the compensation amounts assessed.

¶162

In the light of the discussion made and for the reasons assigned therein, the contentions raised regarding non-issuance of the Notices

¶163

Page 29 of 30

¶164

under the Act, 1964 and the Rules, 1964 is found to be untenable. On the claim regarding reclassification of the petitioners’ parcels land, for enhanced compensation amounts, the Court has not been able to reach any satisfaction to make any interference. If any of the petitioners had filed any application for reclassification before the requisition/acquisition process, then it is left open for examination in terms of the observations made above in an appropriate proceeding.

¶165

Resultantly, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition by the petitioners are found not tenable. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed with the observations made above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

¶166

In the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, as discussed above, it is found that the procedure laid down in the Act, 1964 and the Rules, 1964 were followed for requisition and acquisition of the petitioners’ parcels of land and as such, this Court find no violation of the direction made in the interim Order dated 19.12.2024 which, in any view of the matter, was recalled subsequently on 18.11.2025. Thus, the contempt petition alleging violation of the interim Order dated 19.12.2024 is closed.

¶167

JUDGE

¶168

Comparing Assistant

¶169

Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2025.12.08 15:36:34 +05'30'

¶170

Page 30 of 30

Gireen Chandra Das and 4 Ors. v. Dr. Ravi Kota, IAS and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gireen Chandra Das and 4 Ors. v. Dr. Ravi Kota, IAS and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azad Ali @ Ajat Ali Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, IAS and Anr.

Mtcec Ngo and Anr. Vs Dr Milanjit Bhattacharyya and 4 Ors.

Hemanta Sarmah Vs Siddharth Singh, IAS

Mahdi Saher a Azam Vs Momota Hojai, Acs and 2 Ors.

Abu Shama Ahmed and Anr. Vs Dibakar Nath

Bidyadhar Tanti and 6 Ors. Vs Neeraj Mittal and 5 Ors.

Nityananda Debnath Vs Parag Moni Mahanta and 3 Ors.

Mahmud Ali Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and 2 Ors.

Azad Ali @ Ajat Ali Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, IAS and Anr.

Sofiqur Rahman Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rubul Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Shri Udjal Kro and 4 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Suniti Das Vs the State of Assam